 | | Re: American Idolatry
|
|
(...) Interesting, because (URL) earlier> you seemed to think that was reason enough to hold someone in disrespect. (...) Sure, but holding one of the highest offices in this nation brings with it a responsibility to conduct oneself in a more (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Sorry, why should he shut up about it? If it's against the law and the law is worth enforceing, enforce it. If it's not worth enforcing, get rid of the law. The law against polygamy is such a law. Not worth enforcing. (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'll admit that it's pretty thin, but there is a distinction nonetheless. By refusing to perform same-sex marriages, the Church is not refusing to perform weddings for gays at all. They're just refusing to perform weddings between them. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You'd need to prove conclusively that this is the case. The New Testament is proof enough that Christianity evolved directly from Judeism, just as the Koran is proof enough that Islam did as well. The Old Testament doesn't claim to have (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Truthfully? I'm not sure you can, in much the same way that it's currently impossible to disprove the existence of ET life in the universe. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of using unprovable statements to disprove other unprovable (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Where'd you get that? I'm more concerned with whether it's constitutional for the federal government to do something than whether the states should or should not be the final authority. If the federal government wants to pass an ammendment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Shame on you for following Dubya's lead. It is a mistake to pretend, because you have not made a statement using a specific phrase, that you therefore have not made an equivalent statement using other words. Dubya does this all the time: "If (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) I believe I am. (...) No, no, Tom. The MM would have a hard time with my beliefs-- I am hardly a schill for them! Merely because I am a Christian does not mean for a NY minute that I agree, especially politically with other (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Used. They changed it a while back, but they really only enforce it if you make a big stink about it (in other words, you have to make your crime seem that much more important to enforce than someone else's murder before they're going to come (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
You've never said it in those exact words, and you have several times tried to profess that you're an open-minded person, but just about every post you make in this group is tight-a@@ed Moral Majority pap where everything is fine as long as it goes (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) The fact that past threads became debates doesn't mean that talking about NASA is OT for .geek. I'd recommend judging each thread by it's own contents, not by the history of the subject. (...) Regardless if anyone actually replies to the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Made me curious, but yeah, I think John's spot-on on this one. Looks like it's just yet another quickie parable: "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
This is a reply to both Kelly and Steve (close by in the tree) and the FUT is set to just admin.general (...) I don't know what's proper. We're experimenting. I hope people won't get too upset about it, till we get it right. I did an experiment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
(...) What do I expect, you ask? Same old same old, I guess. Not that the malignancy is confined to the GOP, mind you. But doesn't mean I can't complain/be peeved/be disappointed.. (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) ... But since it didn't actually become a debate, shouldn't it be left alone? I thought it was a very interesting thread, and was surprised to find it just disappeared - if it wasn't for Steve's post, I wouldn't have had any idea that it was (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Had further thoughts about this - are there guidelines about recognizing at what point a thread should be rerouted into a different group? This particular thread, IMO, is pretty harmless (now), but I can see how (URL) threads can deteriorate>. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) Hmm, thought I was on topic for .geek, but you're right, it was starting to become a debate. I agree the followup on this should go to .debate. (...) I saw part of that thread, but hadn't read it in a while - I had a hard time with some of the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Big 2 willing to help with ballot access?
|
|
(...) I didn't pay too much attention to the 'Perot' years, but I wuold imagine, just thinking about it now, that possibly some Dems were more than willingto work at getting 'Little Yappy' on the ballot in many states, considering he filtered off (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
|
(...) I think the topic of 'right level of notification/intervention' is worthy of public discussion. IMO, in this specific instance, the intervention was unnecessary. I hadn't read any 'debate' into the discussion, and any time 'NASA' and 'budget' (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Let's see--by this logic, 5 therefore people count as the majority in a pool of some 100+ million voters. Hmm... Dave! (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
